No abstract

Introduction  Tracheostomy weaning in patients who suffered a severe acquired brain injury is often a challenge and decannulation failures are not uncommon. Objective  Our study objective is to describe the decannulation failure rate in patients undergoing rehabilitation following a severe acquired brain injury (sABI); to describe the factors associated with a successful tube weaning. Methods  We conduct a retrospective analysis of charts, consecutively retrieved considering a 3-year window. Variables analyzed were: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), cause of hospitalization (stroke, trauma, cardiac arrest), date of the pathological event, gap between the index event and the first day of hospitalization, duration of Neurorehabilitation Ward hospitalization, comorbidities, chest morphological alteration, kind of tracheostomy tube used (overall dimension, cap, fenestration), SpO2, presentation and quantification of pulmonary secretion, maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP), respiratory frequency and pattern, cardiac frequency, presence of spontaneous cough, cough strength, and blood gas analysis. Results  We analyzed 45 tracheostomised sABI patients following stroke, trauma, or cardiac arrest. The weaning success percentage was higher in Head Trauma patients and in patients presenting positive spontaneous cough. Failures seem to be associated with presence of secretions and anoxic brain damage. GCS seemed not related to the decannulation outcome. Conclusions  Parameters that could be used as positive predictors of weaning are: mean expiratory pressure, presence of spontaneous cough, and cough strength. Provoked cough and GCS were not predictive of weaning success.

No abstract

We assessed the outcome of dysphagia rehabilitation in all the 139 patients with post-stroke dysphagia admitted to our Neurorehabilitation Unit during 2 years (2017 and 2018), divided into two groups: old (aged 65–84 years) and oldest-old (aged 85 or above). We studied which factors predicted dysphagia improvement in the two groups. The potential association of improvement with type of discharge was also evaluated. On admission, ‘old’ patients had more frequently aphasia (P = 0.02) and less frequently dysarthria (P = 0.03); ‘oldest old’ had more severe pressure ulcers (P = 0.008), higher levels of c reacting protein (P = 0.01) and more heart problems (P = 0.004). None of these factors was associated with the outcome of dysphagia. We found no difference between the two groups in the severity of dysphagia, as measured with Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale on admission and discharge, but due to minor differences, the degree of improvement was higher in the ‘old’ group (P = 0.02). The number of patients discharged with improved swallowing was also comparable. Cognitive impairment had a negative predicting role in the ‘old’ group (odds ratio 0.270, 95% confidence interval 0.101–0.725, P = 0.007). Norton Scale score predicted dysphagia improvement in the ‘oldest old’ group (odds ratio 1.611, 95% confidence interval 1.102–2.355, P = 0.007). Dysphagia improvement was associated with discharge home in general (P = 0.011) and in the ‘old’ group (P = 0.04). Our data, though preliminary, could give a contribution to implement patient-specific rehabilitation strategies; these could increase swallowing improvement in post-stroke dysphagia.